INTERVENTION BY THE HOLY SEE AT THE 6th MINISTERIAL CONFERENCEOF WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO)

ADDRESS OF H.E. MONS. SILVANO TOMASI*

Hong KongSunday, 18 December 2005

The Delegation of the Holy See wishes to express its gratitude
to the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to the
Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, and to the people of Hong Kong
for their kind welcome and to congratulate them on the excellent arrangements
that have been made for this Conference. Equal appreciation goes to the Chairman
of the General Council and to the Director General of the WTO for their efforts
throughout the preparatory period.

It was not possible for the Member States to reach a substantial
agreement before the Hong Kong Conference. Now, the objective is to draft a
document that offers guidelines in order to continue the discussions.
Difficulties manifested themselves at the time of making concessions following
the guidelines established by the Doha Declaration and the Decision adopted by
the General Council on 1 August 2004 (1). While these difficulties could
ultimately not be overcome, they still represent an opportunity to examine more
carefully the contents of the aforementioned Declaration and Session in favour
of development. Such contents should then be taken into account in each and
every one of the new agreements, so that "a universal, rules-based, open,
non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system, [which] can
substantially stimulate development worldwide" (2) may be reached.

A few days ago, in
his message to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) annual Conference,
Pope Benedict XVI spoke about this WTO meeting saying: "In a few days many of
the participants in this Conference will be meeting in Hong Kong for
negotiations on international commerce, particularly with regard to farm
products. The Holy See is confident that a sense of responsibility and
solidarity with the most disadvantaged will prevail, so that narrow interests
and the logic of power will be set aside. It must not be forgotten that the
vulnerability of rural areas has significant repercussions on the subsistence of
small farmers and their families if they are denied access to the market"(3).

The Holy See recognizes the benefit of an equitable and
participatory multilateral system of trade relations directed to attaining and
developing the common good. A spirit of solidarity among all countries and
people should replace the ceaseless competition that aims to achieve and defend
privileged positions in international trade. Protectionism too often favours
already privileged segments of society. Effective multilateralism, on the other
hand, is an inclusive process which acknowledges that at the core of all social
and economic relations, and hence of trade relations, is the human person, with
dignity and inalienable human rights. Therefore, a rules-based trade system or,
better, a fair system of trade rules is indispensable.

A fair system of trade rules should be shaped according to the
level of economic development of the Member States and give explicit support and
special and differential treatment to the poorest countries. When the levels of
development of the members are excessively unequal, the consent of the panties
may not be sufficient to guarantee the justice of their agreement: "trade
relations can no longer he based solely on the principle of free, unchecked
competition, for it very often creates an economic dictatorship. Free trade can
be called just only when it conforms to the demands of social justice"(4).
Moreover, the question of justice in today's trade rules is problematic because
such rules tend to grant more privileges to these who possess more economic
power. A fair system of trade rules is an international public good. Without a
fair system of trade rules, vulnerable people in many developing and developed
countries will be "locked in a poverty trap". In fact, many poor countries are
prevented from reaping the benefits of the new opportunities offered in the new
scenario.

Trade reforms can, in the short-term, bring about for the
poorest countries adjustment costs that could have a harmful impact on the lives
of their citizens. International trade rules should enable governments to adopt
the measures necessary to reduce the social costs of trade liberalization.
Indeed, the global gain from trade liberalization should allow for "compensating
losers".

This approach is in line with the concern to put the human
person at the centre of any development and trade strategy, recognizing that
only by raising individual's capabilities, enabling every person and every
social group to make the most of the opportunities created by trade
liberalization, will it be possible to implement a truly mutually beneficial
fair trade.

Opening access to new markets offers a real opportunity for
developing countries and is an important element of the development process;
however, it is not per se a sufficient condition for lifting countries
out of poverty. Poor countries need be equipped in order to take this
opportunity. Without appropriate infrastructure for access to markets, human
capacity-building, it is unlikely that any country could benefit from trade. A
generous "Aid for Trade" initiative should be predictable, specific, monitored
and country-driven. In this regard, consideration should be given to providing
developing countries with the finances needed to address adjustment costs
arising from the Doha negotiations as well as their supply side constraints.
Indeed, weak economies urgently need support for improving their supply capacity
and trade-related infrastructure in order to be able to translate improved
market access into increased exports.

The international trading system should guarantee a true
partnership based on equal and reciprocal relations among rich and poor
countries. The WTO system should encourage participation of all States, above
all of the most disadvantaged, in the negotiation process. Trade rules should be
negotiated by all, in the interest of all, and adhered to by all, avoiding
closed-door decision-making that lacks the transparency and democracy necessary
for the participation of the weak and voiceless. The benefits that would result
for developing countries would be larger, stable and leading to their
self-reliance.

Free trade is not an end in itself but rather a means for better
living standards and the human development of people at all levels. The
universal destination of the goods of the earth requires that the poor and
marginalized should be the focus of particular concerns.(5) Trade exchanges
should enable all people to have access to these goods. Thus, essential services
such as health, education, water, and food are not normal goods since citizens
cannot choose not to use them without harm to themselves and high social costs
for society. Although often necessary, food aid can lead to unintended
consequences that do not strengthen the food security of poor people(6). These
public goods often require government intervention in markets to ensure
equitable access to them. It is the task of the State to provide for the defence
and preservation of common goods which cannot simply be addressed by market
forces.

There exist important human needs which escape the market logic.
There are goods which due to their very nature cannot and must not be bought or
sold(7). In a very special way, the movement of professionals and workers, a
phenomenon of increasing importance that contributes in a critical way to the
production of wealth, should he planned and managed in ways that optimize the
benefits both for countries of origin and countries of destination, and above
all for the migrants themselves. The discussion on services should address items
of interest to the developing countries, especially those related to the
movement of people, bearing in mind that the economic interests of the poor and
the full respect of all human rights and the rights at work of migrants are
paramount in the negotiations.

In today's world, where the knowledge economy is becoming such
an essential requirement, the concern for the TRIPS Agreement takes on new
significance. While there is a need to protect intellectual property rights as
an incentive for innovation and technology creation, it is also important to
ensure broad access to technology and knowledge especially for low-income
countries. The new goods derived from progress in science and technology are key
to world trade integration. Improved technology and know-how transfer from the
developed countries is necessary so that less-developed countries can catch-up
and gain international trade competitiveness.

Further, we welcome the recent amendment to the TRIPS Agreement
on Public Health. This amendment could assure poor countries access to the means
for the production and importation of essential drugs needed to face the main
pandemics suffered by their populations. It balanced the two important
objectives of intellectual property rules: creating incentives for innovation
and spreading the benefits of the innovations as widely as possible. However,
care should he taken that this amendment not be weakened by regional and
bilateral agreements containing "TRIPS plus" variants, which are more onerous
for poor developing countries.

The Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong could provide not only an
important chance to restore confidence in the Doha Development Round, but also
to restore full credibility and legitimacy to the WTO system and to have the
public at large understand its value. Despite all its inherent constraints, the
WTO is unique among international organizations as a members-driven one with an
ambitious policy of inclusion. The mechanism of an effective Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB) is evidence of a guarantee the equality of all countries before the
law, regardless of their economic power, and it protects virtually all Member
States from unfair, unilateral commercial actions.

This Ministerial Conference has the potential to be remembered
as a milestone in the establishment of a socially just international trading
system. The more the rights and needs of the poor and the weak are taken into
account, the greater becomes the possibility for justice and peace in our world,
two indispensable conditions for sustainable development and for the alleviation
of poverty. These two goals constitute a common ambition to which all members
can aspire as the negotiations go forward: this is a guide for the road ahead.

_______________________________

(1)

2004 July
Package (WT/L/579, 2 August 2004).

(2)
United Nations, A/RES/60/1, 2005 World Summit Outcome, N. 27.

(3)
Benedict XVI at the 33rd Conference of FAO, November 24, 2005.

(4)
Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, n. 59.

(5)
Cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, I. 182, Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace (2004).

(6)
Cf. John Paul II, at FAO Headquarters, 5 December 1992, n. 4: "Food aid can
do much good for recipient countries. However, it should not be used by donor
countries so as to result in commercial displacement of food commodities. In the
long-term, food security problems will not be solved by increasing food aid
dependency of entire populations" that should "receive an education that
prepares them to provide healthy and sufficient foodstuffs on their own".